Board of Commissioners v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3865
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority–East (the Board) sued 97 oil-and-gas-related defendants in Louisiana state court alleging dredging and canal construction caused coastal land loss, increased storm-surge risk, and forced costly flood-protection measures (backfilling, revegetation, levee remediation, etc.).
- The Board pleaded state-law causes of action: negligence, strict liability, natural servitude of drain, public and private nuisance, and third-party beneficiary breach of contract, while referencing a federal regulatory framework (Rivers and Harbors Act, Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act) as establishing duties.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting among other grounds that the state-law claims necessarily raise federal questions; the district court denied remand.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the district court granted dismissal, finding the complaint failed to plead duties or other elements under state law.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it held federal-question removal was proper because resolution of key state-law claims necessarily required construction of federal statutes, and it agreed that the complaint failed to plausibly plead duties and other elements for negligence, strict liability, servitude of drain, and nuisance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists over state-law claims | Board: federal law only supports or supplements state-law duties; federal law not necessary to resolve claims | Defs: Board’s claims rest on duties created by federal statutes/permits, so adjudication requires federal-law construction | Court: Removal proper — resolution necessarily requires deciding disputed, substantial federal questions and won’t disrupt federal-state balance (Grable test) |
| Whether Defendants owed a duty of care (negligence/strict liability) to the Board based on cited federal statutes | Board: RHA, CWA, CZMA and related permits create standards/duties relevant to defendants’ conduct, supporting negligence/strict liability claims | Defs: These statutes do not create private duties to the Board; Louisiana law likewise does not impose such a duty for remote economic/municipal flood-protection costs | Court: Dismissed — neither federal nor state law as alleged imposes a duty to protect the Board from increased flood-protection costs |
| Whether a natural servitude of drain exists between defendants’ properties and Board-managed lands | Board: Dredging altered natural water flow causing harm — servitude exists even without strict adjacency | Defs: Servitude requires estates situated above/below with natural surface-water flow; storm surge is not surface water; complaint lacks allegation identifying dominant/servient estates | Court: Dismissed — complaint fails to plead required property relationships and natural-surface-water flow elements |
| Whether nuisance claims (public/private) were plausibly pleaded | Board: Canal dredging and coastal modification caused actionable nuisance harming Board’s interests; federal regulations show the wrongfulness of conduct | Defs: Complaint lacks required proximate/neighborhood relationship and specificity tying particular works to particular harms | Court: Dismissed — complaint too vague on propinquity/neighbor requirement and causation for Article 667 nuisance claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (establishes narrow test for federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when resolution requires deciding a substantial federal issue)
- Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059 (2013) (clarifies "substantial" prong of Grable — importance to federal system as whole)
- MSOF Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 295 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2002) (distinguishes claims that merely reference federal regulations from those that necessarily rely on federal-law duties)
- Terrebonne Parish Sch. Bd. v. Castex Energy, Inc., 893 So. 2d 789 (La. 2005) (Louisiana Supreme Court rejected implied duty to restore surface absent lease term or unreasonable exercise of rights)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: legal conclusions insufficient; complaint must state plausible claim)
- Wyandotte Transp. Co. v. United States, 389 U.S. 191 (1967) (observes primary purpose of Rivers and Harbors Act is to protect navigable waterways and government interests)